Long Live Liberty

Friday, September 9, 2011

As many of us know, the price of gold has recently surpassed 1,800 USD per ounce. This is a record-high price, but there is seemingly no end in sight for the constant rise in gold prices! Various economists and investment-brokers claim that this price increase will have to peak at some point, but what if, in reality, the increase in gold prices is mostly caused by a decrease in the value of the US Dollar?

If note is taken, there is virtually no change in the amount of oil that can be purchased with one ounce of gold. If we look at the trends of the Euro and the US Dollar, they look similar to the trends of the price of gold. Is it too bold to suggest that gold is not actually increasing in value so rapidly, but the dollar's value is actually dropping? Of course, like all commodities, gold will increase value over time at least gently, but the purchasing power of the dollar is reducing, and the value of gold appears to be climbing more and more steeply.

It could be said that gold is both a worthwhile investment and a useful tool to avoid the hazards of inflation on savings. If used, even partially, as a method of savings for the future, the value would increase more quickly than the rate of inflation. It is not an absolutely sound investment, as there was a large downturn in the price of gold about 3 decades ago.

Based on inflation, the value of gold has not hit a record high. This is just one reason why economists' words should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps the government should take another glance at gold as a viable source of currency.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Here are some questions that you might want to consider. I don't know the answers to them. I don't think anyone does. But you can at least enjoy some intellectual challenges!

Is gold really gaining value, or is the dollar simply losing value?

John Maynard Keynes once said this: "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some."Was Keynes supporting, by supporting constant inflation, the pillaging of citizens?

The Federal Reserve gave out 16 trillion in "emergency loans" from 2007 to 2010. Our money supply before then was 10 trillion dollars. What is going to happen to the value of the dollar?

When interest rates were lowered during the Great Depression, the Depression worsened in conjunction with increased government spending. Why is the Fed lowering interest rates again?

One day we will have to pay back China for all of the loans we have taken out. Where will we get this money?

As much as I may support Gary Johnson's views and his candidacy for President, I have come to an unfortunate position that this year is not his year. I would love for him to be our President, but at this point in the race, without having raised at least a million dollars, he is trailing most of the other candidates who all say the same things. Perhaps, though, to any other Johnson supporters, he would be better suited as a VP running-mate?

I hope everyone understands that it is against campaign law to choose a running-mate before receiving the nomination. That being said, IF Ron Paul were to win the nomination (and he has had consistently-growing poll numbers in the past 3 months, which makes sense when you realized that a Ron Paul supporter, or a Gary Johnson supporter, does not defect because a new name drops into the race. They are proud to stand behind their candidates.) I have a feeling Paul will choose Johnson as his running-mate. Think about past events, at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic in 2008, Gary Johnson was one of the main speakers. They both share essentially the same views on government and its role in the life of citizens of the United States. They have a mutual respect and understanding for each other, even as rivals.

Many candidates use their first presidential bid as a name-building platform. People are starting to KNOW who Gary Johnson is. They are starting to understand how much he supports liberty and sound budgeting. I believe the BEST way to spread his message would be, rather than vote for Johnson in the primaries (even though I really believe he would be an outstanding President), vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. You may not agree with this stance, but this is my logic.

Ron Paul is becoming a national household name. He has published 5 books about liberty, tyranny, and what the government is doing wrong. He is in EVERY debate, manages to stay above 5% in every national poll, and is within one percent of Obama in most polls, too. With stances so similar to Johnson, as well as a voting record to back up his claims, Ron Paul is a legitimate candidate for 2012.

If this primary season, Johnson supporters could wait for one more 4 year period... and put their vote instead to Ron Paul, they would be doing perhaps a larger service to Gary Johnson than if they voted for HIM in the primaries. Think about it: Ron Paul would consider running with only ONE candidate in 2012: Gary Johnson. No one else has the same views, no one else is outside of the mainstream as much as Gary Johnson. If Ron Paul wins the nomination, Gary Johnson would be almost undoubtedly his running mate. HOW could a democrat who is upset with Obama resist a ticket with anti-war, pro-legalization, pro-gay marriage candidates? They are about liberty, freedom, and privacy.

Let's be honest. Which would build a bigger name for Gary Johnson? An unsuccessful GOP bid, or being the running-mate on the national GOP ticket? It happened for Sarah Palin, why not Gary Johnson?

Ron Paul in the Primaries, Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in the general election. This is my position.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Recently I read an article about Dr. Ron Paul. It can be found here. I was outraged by the amount of opinion interjected into this article based on skewed facts and misconceptions. I, as someone who often writes letters to the editor, was forced to write to him.

Mr. Jeffrey Lord:

After reading the article entitled “Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign.” I have noticed that the “liberal” views he has are actually misinterpreted in the article.

The Founding Fathers, although you mention they were “interventionists,” actually were standing for their own principles, and those of the original Right. The Monroe Doctrine was not intervention, as Monroe never HAD the power or army to threaten any international meddling in the Americas, rather he was making a point that autonomy would be supported and backed by the United States against European oppression.

America is the true isolationist now. We refuse to discuss any sort of negotiations with Iran, we refuse to speak to Castro as leader of Cuba. Rather, we ignore them, sanction them, embargo them, and allow the people of those nations to suffer by avoiding diplomacy. We have no true allies (aside from Israel, to whom we give billions in aid each year in hopes that they will remain an ally.) and no true friends worldwide that are not upset by some of our interventions. We are the definition of an isolationist nation, only dealing with other nations through military force when we feel threatened. Otherwise, we continue to borrow money that we cannot repay, and barely make diplomatic amends or even attempt to reduce our debt by ending our foreign, oft unprovoked wars.

Non-interventionists fail to find a scapegoat for calls to intervene in wars? An honest politician like Ron Paul does not NEED to blame anyone. If you watch any debates, he does not attack personal character, he does not say anyone is wrong, he merely “has a different opinion on that subject.” Dr. Paul uses intellect to defeat their ideas, not to defeat the person. It is the idea of freedom that prevails.

On the Anti-Semitism charges against Ron Paul, a man who was involved in Anti-Semitism in his day who wrote a book on the similarities of the US to Germany does not an Anti-Semite make. Dr. Paul simply LISTED a book that relates the US to Germany as a recommended read. He did not say the author was one of his inspirations, he believed the writings display a sound comparison the fascism and the US.

Ron Paul was a good friend of Ronald Reagan, and looked to him for inspiration. The words of someone who supports Paul’s principles are in NO WAY the same beliefs of Dr. Paul. One cannot take the words a Hitler supporter says in distrust about Mussolini and believe that Hitler did not consider Mussolini an ally.

Once again you use Murray Rothbard, someone who supports Paul’s principles, as the reason Paul is so against the “conservatives.” Modern conservatives are not true conservatives. They have made no noticeable action to solve any economic problems in a conservatively traditional and fiscal way.

Palin is a “conservative” who wishes to impose her own views on Americans. A true conservative would never interfere in the daily happenings of citizens, be it in the bedroom, in their workplaces, or in their freedom to choice of course of action in any case. Federalists, like Palin, are considered “liberal” or progressive, because they support a Federal government taking away the rights of American people to make mistakes, to define marriage as they wish, to use marijuana for medical purposes, and to continue a failed drug war.

Michele Bachmann is not a true Tea Partier, as Ron Paul had originally begun the movement. She is a social conservative. Social conservatism strips individuals of freedom. She uses the Tea Party as a medium to gain support with conservatives who agree with the tax opinions of Paul, but also have socially conservative leanings.

Ron Paul’s campaign blogger is not Ron Paul. He speaks about Paul, but does not speak on behalf of Paul’s stances.

Paul believes that education should be left to the local level. Parents should choose how their children are educated. There IS no re-education in question. It is mis-information that America is being fed. Ron Paul is simply providing another perspective.

Thank you for your time. I do hope that one day the “news” will return to being facts, and not opinions. It is the duty of a reporter to report facts, and not opinions.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

If you check out the top listed website on my featured sites, OpenSecrets, you will find where candidates receive their money, and what bundlers have some of the highest donation amounts.

Barack Obama's top three contributors are Goldman Sachs, Comcast, and Exelon.

Goldman Sachs, as we all know, was bailed out with $10,000,000,000 USD.

Comcast owns NBCUniversal, which owns CNBC and MSNBC. Don't be frightened if they are pro-Obama, as their bosses are his TOP donor.

Exelon is an energy corporation that was fined $600,000 USD for pollution problems.

Mitt Romney's top contributors are Morgan Stanley at number 3, Credit Suisse at number 2, and GOLDMAN SACHS at number one, with nearly $300,000 USD in Q2.

Morgan Stanley was critical to the burst of the Real Estate bubble in 2007. They received over $14,000,000,000 USD in emergency investments from Japan and China, and were used to help "save" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the early stages of the bubble burst.

Credit Suisse is a Swiss investment bank.

Tim Pawlenty's top three were... Wells-Fargo, Moelis and Co, and Morgan Stanley.

Wells-Fargo received $25,000,000,000 USD from the bailout. They have only paid back $131,000,000 or one half of one percent.

Moelis & Company is a new investment bank that profited heavily from the 2008 bubble burst by acquiring failing stocks and waiting for their recovery.

Ron Paul's top contributors (based on employer) are as follows: US Army (#1), Google Inc. (#2), Corriente Advisors (#3). Other notables are US Airforce (#4), US Navy (#7), Lockheed Martin (#13), US Government Employees (#17), IBM (#20).

Corriente Advisors is a small Texas investment firm. They were negatively affected by the bailout, as their competitors received financing.

Ron Paul receives more money from US Military Servicemen and women than ANY candidate.

It seems strange, to find out who is donating to whom. (Michele Bachmann had just entered the race by the end of Q2. Rick Perry was not in the race, either. I will update these numbers every quarter until Election Day.)

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Governor Gary Johnson hasn't been gaining national media attention. Rep. Ron Paul, with very similar ideological views, has been the one in the GOP leading the race among fiscal conservative social Libertarians. However, Gary Johnson has character: something that will maintain his image for now, and the future.

Gary has been a guest speaker at Campaign for Liberty (An organization created with Ron Paul's leftover campaign funds) events and a headlining speaker at the Rally for the Republic. Rather than all talk, no action, like most candidates nowadays, he lets his track record speak for itself.

Gary Johnson's donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (See link on right) are primarily from American small to medium sized businesses. Thanks to his position as governor in New Mexico, he oversaw some of the highest private-sector job creation in the nation.

He even sent out a happy birthday wish to his current GOP rival, Rep. Paul today.

Gov. Johnson has character, he has a proven track record, he has respect for other candidates. Watch the debates on September 7th and 12th on MSNBC and CNN, respectively. You can listen yourself and see what Gary Johnson has done.

Friday, August 19, 2011

The following text is an Amendment that I drafted, the "Electoral College Reform Amendment."

Let me know what you think about it.

Article

Section 1. The Electoral College and its Electors shall be reformed in such a way as to delegate electoral ballots to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates according to Congressional District and Senate seat.

Section 2. Each state shall delegate two Electors, those representing every state and its two seats in The Senate, to cast ballots for the candidates receiving the popular majority of votes as submitted by the Citizens of the state.

Section 3. Each state shall delegate the remaining Electors, those representing each seat in The House of Representatives, as well as Electors representing the District of Columbia, to cast ballots for the candidates with the popular majority of votes as submitted by the Citizens of each respective Congressional District.

Section 4. The persons with the greatest number of electoral votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.

Section 5. The Congress in session may provide for the case of a tie in any election.

Section 6. This article shall apply with respect to any election for President and Vice President held after the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the ratification of this article.

The basic gist of this is, the 2 votes as delegated by Senate seats function as they always have. They go with the popular majority of each individual state. However, each district receives a vote based on its own election results.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

In 1921, there was a recession. It was a painful recession. Most people forget about that recession, even though it was one of the worst we had.

This recession only lasted a year. Why did it only last a year? The Federal Reserve did something different then than it would do today: They raised interest rates. The government reduced size at this time, preventing much meddling. The market's volatile assets were cleared within about a year's time, and the recession ended, pushing the United States into a Golden Age.

During the Great Depression, interest rates were lowered, and the government increased in size HUGELY. The Great Depression was not ended until World War II compelled industry and job creation... and created 16 million jobs when soldiers went off to fight and die for their country. It's a curious thing, that larger government and lower interest rates actually prolong a recession, yet that is exactly what is occurring with the Fed and the United States government right now.

By ending the Federal Reserve, or at least changing its policies to advocate higher interest rates in times of recession, the economy CAN recover before the upcoming Bond Bubble bursts. If we do not fix the economy by then, we will be sent through a second recession. That cannot happen.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

As we all know the Electoral College takes a lot of flak because it's "unfair" or "doesn't accurately represent America". There is the slogan "One Person, One Vote" to try and persuade people to believing popular vote is the fairest option. Unfortunately, neither the Electoral College, NOR popular vote are the fairest options.
The Electoral College allows equal representation based on population. That means, if 50% of California votes, and it goes to the Democratic candidate, and 30% of Ohio votes, but it goes to the Republican candidate... 50% of Californian voters did not vote, whereas 70% of Ohioan voters did not vote. The Electoral Votes are still distributed based on 100% of the population. Regardless of how many people vote, all 100% of the voters are counted. That's what makes the Electoral College an acceptable plan.

However, of the 50% of Californian voters that voted... one could say that 25% of those citizens (mostly in the northern area, Jefferson State, or the south East area outside of Los Angeles) may have voted Republican. Their votes are essentially uncounted, and serve no purpose. THIS is the main problem with the Electoral College; the representation of the United States is not proportional.

If the vote in Ohio were 50% one way, 50% the other way, and the Electoral College vote was split 50/50, then 9 votes would go to either candidate. There are TWO benefits to this: the representation would be proportional based on population, AND would allow third-party candidates to stand a chance in the national general election. This would cure the woes of all issues raised.

Now, what do we do about this? We need to spread the word about a proportionally-selected Electoral College, and why it is the best possible option. It would prevent popular vote rule (which, in the case of a national disaster or inclement weather, does not affect the representation of 100% of the people) and would prevent a landslide of the GOP/Democratic Party in every election.

You may be a fan of the popular vote, or a fan of the electoral college. I may not be able to change your opinion, but I hope I have raised a good point.